MacLean family law lawyers note a new judicial interviews involving parental alienation case has just been handed down. So when is a judge supposed to meet with the child in a judicial interviews involving parental alienation dispute? Our highly experienced lawyers regularly deal with cases of parental alienation and parental estrangement. One tool used in recent years is for the judge to meet with the child personally. Some judges support judicial interviews involving parental alienation in child parenting time disputes. Call us immediately as time is of the essence in alienation cases and when you want to argue for judicial interviews involving parental alienation. Check out Lorne MacLean, QC’s interview on Family Matters TV which was the most popular episode ever on Family Matters TV.
Call us now toll free at 1-877-602-9900 to meet with us in Vancouver, Fort St John, Surrey, Kelowna and Calgary.
One thing is certain in when judicial interviews are being considered in a parental alienation cases is that multiple factors are at work. We involve experts familiar with parental alienation and estrangement immediately upon the issue arising. A judicial interview involving parental alienation is one tool the court can use to try to get to the bottom of this emotionally explosive cases. We tell our clients who believe they may be the targeted parent to never give up and we will develop a strategy to get experts and one judge involved in the case early on so the issue remains at the forefront of the court so it can ideally be resolved at a stage where alienation never fully develops or if it has that the alienation is stopped and the damaging symptoms reversed so the child has a healthy relationship with both parents.
Judicial Interviews Involving Parental Alienation
A recent decision this week in C.J.J. v. A.J. involved a judge listening to a variety of experts on whether alienation had occurred and what the appropriate therapy should be. The judge also restated the law on judicial interviews involving parental alienation as it related to the 17 year old son in the case as follows:
[323] Both the respondent father and counsel for X asked that I conduct a judicial interview of X. This request was opposed by the mother. In a brief oral ruling given during the course of trial I concluded that I should conduct a judicial interview of X. I consider it useful to elaborate on those earlier reasons.
[324] Both counsel cited L.E.G. v. A.G., 2002 BCSC 1455. In L.E.G. Madam Justice Martinson concluded that a judge may conduct an interview of a child even in the absence of consent from a parent (at para. 4). She added that while a parent’s opposition to an interview is not determinative, that parent’s specific reasons for withholding consent may be important to a determination of what she considered to be the relevant factors of relevance, reliability and necessity of the judicial interview (at para. 6).
[325] Madam Justice Martinson outlined the matters to be taken into account when considering whether conducting an interview is in the best interests of the child:
[5] In doing so, the judge can consider the general purposes of such an interview, and the general benefits of and concerns relating to the judge interview process. In addition, the judge can consider case specific factors by looking at the relevance of the information that would be obtained to the issues that have to be decided, the reliability of the information, and the necessity of conducting the interview rather than obtaining the information in another way.
Judicial Interviews Involving Parental Alienation Can Help
[326] Counsel for X said that the general purposes of an interview included obtaining the wishes of the child, making sure the child has a say in decisions affecting his or her life and providing the judge with information about the child. Although what the child has to say is not determinative, it may provide the judge with context in which to understand better the whole of the evidence that must be weighed.
[327] As to the general benefits and concerns relating to the judicial interview process, counsel for X noted that a child may be more comfortable speaking in an informal setting, without the parents present, which may lead to the child providing more open and reliable information. It will also be clear to the child that the person making the decision has received his views.
[328] As to the case-specific factors referred to in the quote from L.E.G. above, counsel for X said that his views are relevant to the issues to be decided, they are necessary because they are a “critical piece of the puzzle” in assessing the evidence as a whole and in making a determination of what orders serve X’s best interests, and the reliability of the information should not be determined at this stage as this forms part of the central issues in the case.
[329] The father supported a judicial interview of X.
[330] Counsel for the mother said the question before the Court is how X’s views ought to be received. Counsel emphasised that X’s views are already fully before the Court by way of a s.15 custody and access report, in affidavits sworn by X (and which the mother agrees should be admitted in evidence) and, because X has his own counsel, in submissions that will be made on his behalf. Counsel for the mother also referred to certain other means by which X’s views are also before the court, these being letters from X as well as his statements to others. As a result of this plethora of information counsel submitted that a judicial interview did not meet the L.E.G. factor of “necessity of conducting the interview rather than obtaining the information in another way”.
[331] Counsel for the mother also questioned the reliability of the information that would be obtained from X since professionals have concluded that he is alienated and will simply continue to present his distorted views of the mother. In addition, counsel said there was a risk that the father would interfere yet again and in doing so would further alienate and harm the child.
Judicial Interviews Involving Parental Alienation Not Routine
[332] I agree that L.E.G. is a good starting point when considering whether to conduct a judicial interview. I also agree that a judicial interview is not usually the best means to gather information or evidence about the child’s situation, needs, wishes and feelings: see Nicholas Bala et al, “Children’s Voices in Family Court: Guidelines for Judges Meeting Children” (2013), 47 Fam. L.Q. 381 at 392, 397 (the “Bala Article”). In that article the authors say, and I agree, that the purpose of a child’s meeting with a judge is not to gather evidence or to have the child provide information about a factual matter in dispute between the parties (at 399). Instead, judicial interviews have as their purpose (at 396):
(i) … to enable children to feel more involved and connected with proceedings in which important decisions are made in their lives; (ii) to give children an opportunity to satisfy themselves that the judge has understood their wishes and feelings, and (iii) to help children to understand the nature of the Judge’s task and the court process.
[333] I conclude that these are additional considerations that should be taken into account in assessing the need for or utility of a judicial interview in addition to those discussed in L.E.G.
[334] In this case there is an older child (16 years old, turning 17 in a few months) who, the evidence discloses, has expressed at least some frustration that his views have not been heard or not taken into account. Whether this perception on his part is accurate may be another question given the multitude of reports (including a s. 15 report), two affidavits and two letters from the child himself as well as other evidence given by his parents and others, plus the fact that he had his own counsel to speak on his behalf, but the fact remains that this is his apparent perception. In addition, X has run away from his mother’s house during the post-retreat segment of Dr. Reay’s program, thus indicating his lack of acceptance of the earlier process.
Judicial Interviews Involving Parental Alienation May Get Child Onside With Order
[335] In the Bala Article the authors say (at 401):
In cases where alienation is a factor, a child may express strongly negative views about one parent that are reflective of the alienation; this is not a reason for a judge to not meet the child, but it may be a reason to discount the child’s stated views in coming to a decision. Failure to even meet the child in alienation cases can sometimes make it more difficult to achieve compliance with any order that the court might make.
[336] In this case both Dr. Baker and Dr. Worenklein expressed reservations about the reliability of any information X might impart on a judicial interview. That is a valid point, but I concluded, as did the authors of the Bala Article, that this in itself is not a reason to decline to conduct a judicial interview.
[337] I concluded it would be beneficial to interview X because: (1) he was reported to have been frustrated in the past about not having his views taken into account; (2) he wanted a judicial interview; (3) an interview would allow him to be reassured that I have heard and understood his views; (4) an interview would give me an opportunity to explain to him that there were various considerations beyond his own individual situation that I had to take into account, including the interests of other members of the family and, in particular, his two siblings; and (5) a judicial interview would enhance the likelihood that X would accept the outcome.
[338] Following the submissions at trial I indicated that judgment was reserved and would be pronounced orally at a later date. I instructed counsel and the parties that X should not be present for those reasons for judgment but that he should be available afterwards so that I may address a few remarks to him in open court. I intend those remarks to be a type of follow-up to the judicial interview already conducted.
Hire A Lawyer Familiar With Judicial Interviews Involving Parental Alienation
If you are involved in a parental alienation case we advise you to meet with us immediately as prompt intervention by experts lawyers and judges familiar with parental alienation is crucial. A judicial interview involving parental alienation is a very important tool to enable a judge to get a real feel for what is going on. It is important you lawyer knows what the rules are when judicial interviews involving parental alienation is proposed or is to occur.
